Essuon Vrs Boham [2014] GHASC 156 (21 May 2014)

Essuon Vrs Boham [2014] GHASC 156 (21 May 2014)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of capacity based solely on affidavit and motion without a plenary trial or adducing evidence, and that estoppel per rem judicatam was not properly established as the full record of the prior proceedings was not tendered. The majority of the Court of Appeal also erred in affirming the High Court's ruling without addressing these procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.

Citation
[2014] GHASC 156
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Ebusua Panyin Kofi Essuon; Defendant/respondent: Charles Kofi Boham (substituted by Ekow Lamptey)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Ghana
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Capacity to Sue, Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam, Consolidation of Suits, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Evidence Family Law Capacity to Sue Estoppel Per Rem Judicatam Consolidation of Suits Burden of Proof

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ebusua Panyin Kofi Essuon

Plaintiff/appellant

Charles Kofi Boham (substituted by Ekow Lamptey)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of capacity without a plenary trial
  2. 2 Whether estoppel per rem judicatam was properly established to bar the appellant's claim
  3. 3 Whether the majority of the Court of Appeal erred in affirming the High Court's ruling based on procedural and evidentiary grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of capacity based solely on affidavit and motion without a plenary trial or adducing evidence, and that estoppel per rem judicatam was not properly established as the full record of the prior proceedings was not tendered. The majority of the Court of Appeal also erred in affirming the High Court's ruling without addressing these procedural and evidentiary deficiencies.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Case remitted to the trial court for hearing on its merits as a consolidated suit with suit № 122/81.